If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Eng vs Aus - Disallowed Hooper try

Menace asks a really good question: "So for how long does Hooper have no rights in that situation?"

At the point that he moves toward the ball he is offside but at the time he plays the ball he isn't. If he was going to be sanctioned that should have happened when he moved forward. Where was the penalty awarded? (Not yet seen the clip)

Re: Eng vs Aus - Disallowed Hooper try

The TMO ties your hands in this instance. The question posed was whether he was offside when the ball was kicked. As he was offside and moving forwards, that he was the one that scored the try meant it was always material.

Not the same as the limit of rolling back max of 2 phases for other types of infringements ? I guess the ref can go back as far as he deems necessary just like a judgement call on allowing penalty advantages to run on and on, when many would perhaps raise an eyebrow?

Re: Eng vs Aus - Disallowed Hooper try

Menace asks a really good question: "So for how long does Hooper have no rights in that situation?"

At the point that he moves toward the ball he is offside but at the time he plays the ball he isn't.

I don't think that is true. If you stop and wait to be put onside, that is OK. If you continue forwards, you have breached the conditions and cannot technically be made onside retrospectively.

Materiality will often mean that the initial forward movement can be ignored, but in Hooper's case the argument is that he benefited from drifting forward in that he got to the ball significantly earlier than otherwise.

He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
And whistled as he went, for want of thought. The Referee byJohn Dryden

Re: Eng vs Aus - Disallowed Hooper try

Originally Posted by ChuckieB

The TMO ties your hands in this instance. The question posed was whether he was offside when the ball was kicked. As he was offside and moving forwards, that he was the one that scored the try meant it was always material.

Not the same as the limit of rolling back max of 2 phases for other types of infringements ? I guess the ref can go back as far as he deems necessary just like a judgement call on allowing penalty advantages to run on and on, when many would perhaps raise an eyebrow?

...offside and liable to sanction as he continued to drift forward rather than stop as if he had hit a brick wall. Just to be clear

Re: Eng vs Aus - Disallowed Hooper try

In the general case I would say you are offside and liable to sanction for that phase of play.

If a ruck or maul forms before you interfere with play it would set a new offside line and provided you stop behind it, your earlier drift forward is probably not material.

Similarly if the opposition gather the ball and run, pass or kick while not under pressure - that should put you onside.
But if you are putting them under pressure before they make you onside - you are still offside.

An edge case would be the opposition gather, immediately kick and the erstwhile offside player charges it down, gathers and scores.
Does the kick put him onside, or is it a penalty because he would not be in position to charge down if he was not advancing while offside?
Probably the latter, but it depends on exact circumstances on the day?

Re: Eng vs Aus - Disallowed Hooper try

Originally Posted by didds

OR maybe to turn it on its head....

Often a player may get away with it. But on the occasion he doesn't , tough shit.

didds

Which in reality is the fans biggest grump and frustration, but as long as we have materiality and empathy in play we will always have breaches of law that are not pinged, and (most) fans will not understand that.

Re: Eng vs Aus - Disallowed Hooper try

Originally Posted by didds

OR maybe to turn it on its head....

Often a player may get away with it. But on the occasion he doesn't , tough shit.

didds

I like your thought, which i've expanded ...

Often a player may get away with it, as it's often immaterial. But on the occasion he scores soon afterwards - then it's entirely material & if there is a TMO to help spot it then you are a very good player & you've been caught by the necessity to see accurate not empathetic decisions at that level ,